Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 500 (2.23 seconds)
Documents citing Mahadeolal Kanodia vs The Administrator-General Ofwest ... on 20 April, 1960

Nabendu Dutta And Ors. vs Arindam Mukherjee And Ors. on 20 May, 2003

47. On the other hand, if the aforesaid words are treated to be for future occurrence then, the position will emerge that the aforesaid amending portion cannot be given any effect at all for a period of at least one year. One year is the minimum period for default in order to take the advantage of the aforesaid sub-section. This amending Act on the contrary has been given effect on and from the date of notification itself. It is an absurd thought after an Act having been notified it cannot be given effect immediately. The operation of this Act cannot be suspended for a period of one year unless of course it is provided expressly, at least by giving interpretation of the words and language of the section itself. The aforesaid Supreme Court decisions, as referred to above, have clearly held that interpretation of the words of any statute cannot be given effect to frustrate or defeat the object of the Act or lead to an absurdity (see Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of West Bengal, ).
Calcutta High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 4 - K J Sengupta - Full Document

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution ... vs Chhattisgarh State Electricity ... on 26 August, 2019

ii) Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B., reported in AIR 1960 SC 936 11.3 Learned counsel for the Appellant invited our attention to the para 44 of the impugned order which has provided details of power generated and Page 70 of 82 Judgment of A.No.277 of 2014 & batch consumed by the Appellant which indicates that Net Generation during 2006-07 was 1992.91 MUs, power supplied to Discom is 622.94 MUs, the captive consumption is recorded as 758.62 MUs, the power supplied to other third parties is 577.63 MUs and power supplied to M/s Nalwa Steel is 30.35 MUs. Learned counsel highlighted that the Respondent Commission ought to have excluded the power supply of 622.94 MUs made to the Respondent No. 2./Discom and if the same is excluded from net generation, then the energy consumed by Appellant for 2006-07 would be in excess of required amount(51%). However, the Commission has calculated otherwise and included the energy supplied to Respondent/Discom in its aggregation.
Appellate Tribunal For Electricity Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Director Of School Education vs M. Velayutham on 2 June, 2023

(i) Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B. [(1960) 3 SCR 578] “8.The principles that have to be applied for interpretation of statutory provisions of this nature are well-established. The first of these is that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective; they are retrospective only if by express words or by necessary implication the legislature has made them retrospective; and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words, or necessary implication. The second rule is that the intention of the legislature has always to be gathered from the words used by it, giving to the words their https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 115/132 WA. No. 313 of 2022 etc batch plain, normal, grammatical meaning. The third rule is that if in any legislation, the general object of which is to benefit a particular class of persons, any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefit and another which would take it away, the meaning which preserves it should be adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

The Director Of School Education vs M. Velayutham on 2 June, 2023

(i) Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B. [(1960) 3 SCR 578] “8.The principles that have to be applied for interpretation of statutory provisions of this nature are well-established. The first of these is that statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective; they are retrospective only if by express words or by necessary implication the legislature has made them retrospective; and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words, or necessary implication. The second rule is that the intention of the legislature has always to be gathered from the words used by it, giving to the words their https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 115/132 WA. No. 313 of 2022 etc batch plain, normal, grammatical meaning. The third rule is that if in any legislation, the general object of which is to benefit a particular class of persons, any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefit and another which would take it away, the meaning which preserves it should be adopted.
Madras High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - R Mahadevan - Full Document

The Director Of School Education vs M. Velayutham on 2 June, 2023

(i) Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator-General of W.B. [(1960) 3 SCR 578] “8.The principles that have to be applied for interpretation of statutory provisions of this nature are well-established. The first of these is that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 115/134 WA. No. 313 of 2022 etc batch statutory provisions creating substantive rights or taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective; they are retrospective only if by express words or by necessary implication the legislature has made them retrospective; and the retrospective operation will be limited only to the extent to which it has been so made by express words, or necessary implication. The second rule is that the intention of the legislature has always to be gathered from the words used by it, giving to the words their plain, normal, grammatical meaning. The third rule is that if in any legislation, the general object of which is to benefit a particular class of persons, any provision is ambiguous so that it is capable of two meanings, one which would preserve the benefit and another which would take it away, the meaning which preserves it should be adopted. The fourth rule is that if the strict grammatical interpretation gives rise to an absurdity or inconsistency such interpretation should be discarded and an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose the Legislature may reasonably be considered to have had will be put on the words, if necessary even by modification of the language used.”
Madras High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 3 - R Mahadevan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next